AgarwaenME

Which is patently not true of course. Also, just calling something ignorant and not say why just makes you look like a child. But of course people making threads, or filling other threads, asking for nerfs and caps to ships they dislike isn't biased?

And? I see MM with 3 yamatos +4 more BBs against 3 BBs in a game with 1-2 DDs at most too, so what does that prove. Only that the MM screws up at times, and noone disputes that you'd want a more even distribution of classes, even if (again having to point this out) that alone doesn't say much unless you consider which exact ships that were. And if you check those numbers at t10, you see BBs just as much ahead of CAs as DDs are ahead of BBs, and there's just two lines of BBs to chose from. It's a fair assumption that if there were another line of BBs they could easily beat DDs in number of games played at t10, and completely trump CAs. And those numbers were again for t10 only, at t9 you have MORE (even if just by a small margin) games played in BBs than DDs. T8? BBs and CAs are well infront of DDs. T7? CA-BB-DD with fairly wide margins. Of course the distribution here is easily understood, with tiers where there's a popular premium being heavily affected (more than 4 times as many games were played with the tirpitz than the shimakaze, so.. hardcap tirpitzes?). And the real reason for the skew at t10 is the fact that the yamato completely dominates the montana so many stop at t9 in the USN BB tree or just don't play their montana, and in a game where a ship like the yamato can dominate other BBs and most CAs as it does, the counterplay to that is to play a DD. So the "logic" that you need to cap DDs because they're too popular because they're the most played class of ship in ONE of the higher tiers just don't hold water.

Thing is, if CAs are "balanced", then BBs aren't, as they perform a lot better, and DDs perform worse than CAs. So what "balance" are you looking for? And if you think CAs can "easily fight every other class" that's just more ignorant nonsense. You seem to be of the confused notion that classes of ships have clear lines, when in fact they're far more blurred than that. But that would make your silly "cap class X" idea sound silly, so I guess that's what forces you into that position. And torp walls? Why are torps with their incredibly low hit rates, long reload speeds and extremely long time to targets somehow worse than having 40 BB shells shot at you from multiple angles with only a few seconds time to avoid, all with as large potential damage as any torp, and where they can just fire another salvo in ~30 seconds again? Here's a hint, it's not, it's just you being afraid of having a counter.

[Citation needed]

Enough for what? How do you define "enough". And you totally ignore the need to have them counter BBs. How about that situation? It's pure selfish desire. It's also amazingly ignorant, as so many DDs work just as much, or more, as DD counters than either CV (their actual hard counter usually) or CAs (which while able to kill them, and ambush them with radar or sonar) aren't their real counter at all.

So in that case you'll be in favour of my suggestion. Which would make sure there's no more DDs than BBs can easily handle. Also, you might want to look into reload times for higher tier DD torps.

So you belong to those that wants easy mode then.

How about we cap DDs to the same amount of BBs in that match? So if you have 4 BBs on a team, the opposing team gets 4 DDs, and vice versa. That would be a fair way to do it, unless you in reality just wants an easy mode where you don't ever have to face ships you can't handle.

Just remember guys, McDonalds makes the best, highest quality food in the world. That's why more people visit it than any other "restaurant". So if we just cap the amount of McDonalds in the world, you'll instantly see an increase in 3 star Michelin restaurants.

To expand on this. He's basicly looking at minor statistical bump, trying to find some causation (or just invent, heavily influenced by personal bias towards his own superior gameplay), and then trying to use that bump as evidence for it. Which is just circular logic of the creationist kind. Beyond the decent possibility he's just trolling, it's just him stroking his own ego, because it couldn't possible just be that he had a few days where he played poorly. It's like trying to prove the existence of ESP by having 1000 people make 50/50 guesses while removing everyone that fails until only a few remains, then claiming that those remaining have been proven to have supernatural foresight just because "statistics".

Well, it mostly is. But I feel it's more productive to point out the trolling than let it slide and have their ideas spew more similar ones.

Actually, if you bothered to check you would see that his performance for those games was also lower, by even more than his lowered WR. The crazy thing here is, the initial claim is that WG gives you worse performance, not worse win rates. Which in a crazy twisted way works WITH your initial nutcase conspiracy idea, but you just can't manage to keep your own story in order to notice that. If anything you'd expect to see him stay closer to his WR (since his performance affects that less) while doing less damage. Which goes towards what others here also says and what you always see with these conspiracy notions. One guy will make a claim, then others chime in to agree with ideas that are actually mutually exclusive or entirely different as "evidence". It's like religions, all can't be true, and it's most likely that all are false.

You're confusing "denial" with "realism". Also, the definition of "denial" is making sure you don't ever hear any opposing idea. Like blocking people that disagrees would be. And no, buying a tirpitz just means I want a way to generate credits (and also to have a good t8 BB for ranked battles). It is entirely unrelated to any tinfoil hat conspiracy idea you have.

So you're basicly less than 10 games worth of good games within your older average. This isn't undexpected variance at all. Basicly, this isn't statistics, it's an anecdote.

[edited]

True enough. And like all of these claims even back to early WoT, whenever you ask them to provide the evidence they claim they have, they give you anecdotes, numbers from a tiny set of games (and none they can actually prove they didn't just make up) or just tell you you're "rude" or a "troll" for demanding they provide it. It's like a D&D troll, they regenerate...

He said he had evidence. As did you. We're waiting for that, and unless you provide that forthwith, then by definition you are a liar. Because that's what liars do, they tell lies.

I don't have to have any. Learn about the burden of proof. Also, you've already said you have evidence, so just post it. [edited]

That's proof for nothing. [edited]

To establish truth you need evidence. Provide some or shut up.

Then do so.

Which alone makes it pretty easy.

Just a fyi. The 2500xp requirement mission includes bonuses. Which makes it rather easy.

Reading isn't your forte I guess? How about YOU try to start doing what I said, then maybe your team won't consider you just the same as you consider them. You're looking for excuses, start looking for solutions.

Just to use you as an example of people using hyperbole. Recent stats are.. 15 games with 40% WR, that means it's literally impossible for you to actually have 10 losses at all today, nevermind a 10 loss streak. And to even have a 9 loss streak, you actually need to have had a 6 win streak in there too. And at a sample size of 15, then you'd expect a huge variance, so it's not even a statistical outlier. Basicly, what you're crying about is nothing special. Annoying maybe? Sure. Even cause to get irritated over. But still well within norms.